Dougb wrote:Well Bob, I goofed. I think you are correct... the most remote spot in CA is probably no more than 13 miles from the nearest road. The place in CA that is furthest from any road is probably in the Sierra NV, since even Death Valley is criss-crossed with numerous dirt roads. And military bases no doubt have lots of roads even though they aren't shown on maps.

The Sinkyone Wilderness along the Mendocino coast is quite remote. There is a road - a tiny, barely passable road called Usla Road, that may make some points not as remote if going by the "distance from a road" metric.

Some places just seem remote in the mind, even if a road goes there (or nearby). How about some of those old ghost towns in the Mojave Desert? Midland... Eagle Mtn... Ivanpah... imagine going there a hundred years ago.

Some of the big Indian Reservations here in AZ have numerous roads but are so far off the usual arterial routes that going to some of these places really does seem remote. The Tohono O'odham Nation between Tucson and Organ Pipe is very distant, and most of those little towns are way off the main roads. You feel like you're in Mexico, 100 years ago, when down there (aside from the BP presence).

Smoove910 wrote:In the lower 48, Frank Church Wilderness here in Idaho, hands down. But that certainly doesn't mean any of you are invited.

With all due respect you should have read the thread.

"In terms of distance from the nearest road, the southeast corner of Yellowstone National Park is often quoted as the most remote spot in the lower 48 states - roughly 30 miles from the nearest road."

Well said. I have heard it said the remotest point is the Thorofare Patrol Cabin just inside Yellowsotne, however I believe it is not far away at Bridger Lake in the Teton Wilderness. With Yellowstone, the Teton Wilderness, the Washakie Wilderness, and adjacent roadless land you have an incedible chunk of wild.

I love the Absarokas but get to also look at the NE Wind Rivers and Downs Mt. just about every day. Look at the Downs Mt. Quad. Forget roads, see any trails?

Really? Maybe I'm confused about how "core-to-perimeter" is being used, but I'm not seeing where in the Frank this number could be correct. In my quite unscientific fiddling on Google Earth, I don't think you could draw a circle of more than about 16-17 mile radius that doesn't intersect the wilderness boundary, which in the Frank is a pretty accurate proxy for roads. I'd love it if the larger figure were true, though!

Where did you find this info? (Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested.) I'd love to see figures for New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada.

Wild Idaho in the Falcon series. Apparently the numbers come from the wilderness inventories. I thought 65 sounded high too, but numbers in Idaho seem to vary a lot for some reason from source to source. That doesn't seem to be the case in other states which have more consistant numbers. It's a pain to dig for info.

The Wild series seems to have some of the more accurate information out there which is better than most of the online and other sources, though even then I still use the phrase "to the best of my knowlege". I would really like to hear from anyone who has some more detailed information.

Some online and written info out there is way off such as the supposed stat for SE Yellowstone being farther from roads than so many others (although it is still wild).

I don't think you could draw a circle of more than about 16-17 mile radius that doesn't intersect the wilderness boundary

One thing important to note is that the figures include the entire roadless area rather than just designated wilderness. Some of the above aren't designated wilderness at all. A 10 mile figure (for example) can mean that the center of the wilderness may have a core to perimeter distance even if the designated wilderness isn't that big.

One thing important to note is that the figures include the entire roadless area rather than just designated wilderness. Some of the above aren't designated wilderness at all. A 10 mile figure (for example) can mean that the center of the wilderness may have a core to perimeter distance even if the designated wilderness isn't that big.

I thought about that, but I'm still not seeing it. Enough of the Frank's boundaries are where they are because of a road, I can't see that effect making a difference of more than a couple miles. If they're talking paved roads, the 65 mile figure looks a lot more feasible. I could also definitely believe that there might be some places 65 trail miles from a road.

Maybe mrh will weigh in with some thoughts. He seems to know these areas better than anyone.

Good work Scott. I didn't believe the SE Yellowstone thing for a second. My guess for Idaho was probably the Frank Church first followed by the Selway Bitterroot or Owyhee. I don't know the Owyhee or the Frank well enough to weigh in with much authority. One thing I have noticed about the main Salmon River canyon is that there are several roads sneaking into it from the north, west and east. But from the south, where most of the wilderness is, I just don't know it well enough.

I'd agree with DoubleCabin that the Downs Mountain quad has some pretty lonely country. Even though the lines of sight are long, I never saw anybody back there on two visits.

Here in Alaska, I'd mildly dissent from somebody's suggestion of Ipnavik River in the NPRA as the most remote spot. People do get into that area once in a while. I think one of the islands far out in the Aleutians might be a more reliable place to never see another person for years on end. Maybe Amatignak Island, southermost point in all of Alaska at 51° 15' 44" north latitude, 179° 06' 31". But then again, somebody did wind up there, in a slightly unplanned way, last year http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528486,00.html